Thanks for the correction. I agree water does burn on top of water. Now, explain to me the science that demonstrates, to paraphrase the Oldman, the scientific impossibility of bodies burning in a ditch stacked several corpses high.

You know, Cool Hand, you’re starting to look like your face is one big, bloody mess by now. You’ve shown both your lack of intelligence and scientific understanding, plus your need to prevaricate.

“A pit adds nothing but unnecessary work. It actually complicates the combustion process by severely restricting the flow of air to the bottom, which is essential for combustion. Holocaust propagandists should take a good look at a barbecue set. There are always holes at the bottom of the pan that holds the charcoal to allow air to come in.

It is often claimed that burning of bodies in pits in concentration camps was allegedly done throughout the year, which included winter months. In the warm climate of India it takes almost half a ton of dry wood to cremate a body, but in subzero temperatures of Poland in the winter months it would only be natural to assume that cremation would require even more energy than in India, to account for the fact that the rate of heat loss into the atmosphere would be considerably greater. It would take plenty of energy just to melt the ice on and in the bodies! Human bodies, as is well known, contain at least 60 percent of water.

Worse yet, the bulk of "cremations in the pits" has allegedly been performed at Birkenau, but that is simply impossible because of the high level of the ground water table, where it is often just a foot or two from the surface of the earth and the entire area is practically flooded when the snow begins to melt in the spring.

Flip Muller, a Jew who claims to have been a member of the Auschwitz prisoner working brigade and whose task included disposal of the dead, insists the pit cremations were done in spite of the water. In the movie Shoah, Muller presents an even more absurd story in that a fire truck had to be used to pump the water out of a pit near Birkenau, so that the dead bodies could be cremated in it! How absurd can the stories get?

They do get pretty crazy. The subject of burning pits have been dealt with extensively during the first Zundel trial. An "eyewitness", Rudolph Vrba, claimed he saw them, so I am treating you with an excerpt from his testimony under cross-examination by defense attorney, Doug Christie:
Q: Mm-hmmm. Would you say, sir, that you told us yesterday about burning pits?

A. Yes.

Q: Would you say that yesterday you told us there were pits that were six meters wide, six meters long and six meters deep?

A. I also made the remark that I didn't make a measurement with a tape, but it was my judgment of that measure.

Q. You gave us an example by referring to the panels on the wall, and you pointed up to, I think, the top of the first panel; didn't you?

A. Yes, that would be it.

Q. Mm-hmmm. Well, how do you explain the method by which the Germans could burn bodies under water in this marshy ground where the water level was about - well, you described it as marshy ground. Tell us how they did that.

A. Well, they didn't invite me for technical consultations. And if you accept that I'm not speaking only as a witness, I saw only when it was finished; but if you want my technical advice, I would think, without having seen how they have done it and without me having consulted how they have done it, that I could have to do it myself given three, four hundred slave laborers. There's no problem.

Q. Well, tell me how - you agree you described the ground all around there as marshy ground, or do you say otherwise?

A. The ground all around was marshy. This means as a countryside.

Q. Because it was between two rivers.

A. It was between two rivers, but as you probably have been in your life in a marshy countryside, you know that even in marshy countryside there are occasional visitors around and fishermen. So in marshy land I would say that there are some quite dried out, well-prepared pieces of land by the administration of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp which were not marshy or which were not to be considered too marshy especially when (it) was in winter 1942 it was heavy frost, and you know it was sort of solid earth.

Q. Mm-hmmm. It was frozen earth?

A. Frozen earth.

Q. Well, how does the fire keep the water from melting?

A. How does fire. . .

Q. How is the fire arranged so that the water in this marshy ground did not melt and fill up the pit that was as high as that top panel on the wall over there? That's a long way down, isn't it?

A. Yes. Well, you are asking me again something which I do not know, neither from eye witness acount, nor have I consulted on technical problem, and I suppose that anybody with a slight technical education will explain to you that if you are in a marshy land and dry out that marsh on, say, one kilometer square, then you get completely different conditions within that kilometer square than in the rest of the marsh. I would think so. . . .

Q: Six meters.

A. Yes. At the bottom of the pit.

Q: Six meters down?

A. Yes. But it was only four meters and not six meters. because I didn't have a tape, and my measures would be very sort of lost, and perhaps in view of the awesome situation it might have appeared to me bigger than it was, you see, within a meter or two.

Q. Within ---

A. I know you will blame me that I didn't use a yardstick, but it wasn't technically possible.

Q. No, I don't blame you at all. I am just asking you questions, and perhaps if you will answer them, that will be a good idea.

A. I will be pleased.

Q. So, if I understand you correctly, the six by six by six metters might be out by one or two meters?

A. Might be out by one or two meters.

Q. Mm-hmmm. You don't understand or know any reason why there would be no water in the bottom of this pit; you have no explanation for this at all.

A. Of course I have an explanation. If the pit was heated up, and if there was a lot of bodies burning, everything - and if it was not used once but many times, then the water from around would have long dried out.

Q: I see. Is it true that what you said earlier was the case that it was marshy ground?

A. The marshy ground was general around Auschwitz. In other words --

Q: Not around Birkenau?

A. Around Birkenau. In other words, how marshy Birkenau was, I, the first time realized only after I left Birkenau and had to cross the common camp area. In other words, Birkenau was built up in a marshy area, but Birkenau itself was not marshy any more.

Q. Oh, you say that it was built up above the level of the land.

A. I do not say that it was built above the level of the land, but proper and simple ameliorative measures were taken so that Birkenau and the Birkenau installations will not be succumbed by the swamps. The swamps were there, otherwise you will have to ask for the technical administration of Auschwitz camp house. I am not a builder, but I knew how to build things.

Q: What ameliorative measures do you say were taken?

A. Yes, ameliorative measures, which translated means measures to regulate unexpected flood of water. It is used quite frequently by great agricultural enterprises when they want a piece of their agricultural dry, and a piece wet. This is achieved by amelioration.

Q. What ameliorative measures do you say were taken to prevent water from being a problem in Auschwitz? Do you say that they raised the level of the land. . . ?"

Now, class. Compose yourselves!

Back to more serious matters. When a body is cremated in a furnace, the heat of combustion is contained within the retort and the burning continues all the way to the smoke stack, making it the most economical method of cremation. But when a body is cremated in the open, plenty of heat escapes without coming into contact with the body, which, obviously, makes it an extremely wasteful method of cremation. And the pit would not improve things at all, even if dug on a high ground, with no water seeping in. Just look at what it takes to prevent losses of energy in a normal furnace - special high-temperature resistant bricks, afterburners with multiple baffles to create turbulence in the flue gas and thus to facilitate combustion of small particles, forced draft, very high smoke stacks! Why in the name of plain common sense, burning pits?”

Quote:

Originally Posted by MapleLeaf_Up

I just like to further add to this point and submit the following information from an article by J. J. O'Connor & E. F. Robertson on Galileo Galilei: "On 31 October 1992, 350 years after Galileo's death, Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy..."

So, here we have a situation were the Pope, the premier representative of the Catholic Church, admits to errors in the Church's case against Galileo three and a half centuries after the fact. Is it reasonable to suggest that the original findings of the Church are still accurate because the Church waited three and a half centuries to confess to its errors?

In regards to the Red Cross, you asserted we ought to be skeptical of the addmisions of its director because the organization waited 47 years to admit to its "moral failings". The insinuation is that the original post-war Red Cross report is more accurate and reliable than the information in the 1997 documents because the Red Cross waited 47 years to admit to its errors. Consequently, is it not fair to suggest that by your logic, the original findings against Galileo are more reliable than present information because the Pope and the Church waited 350 years to admit to its errors?

Once again, can everyone say redirection? The Catholic Church has claimed infallibility throughout history. They may realize no one believes that anymore. I don’t think the Red Cross has ever claimed infallibility. Plus, the upper hierarchy of the Red Cross are in the positions they are because they know what happens to anyone that questions the fable of the holohoax. They’ve seen what happens to people that do, like Ernst Zundel. It’s bad for one’s career. It wasn’t that bad for careers during or after WWII. These days, it’s good for one’s career to suck up to the jews. If you have no self-respect or integrity, it isn’t that hard. That would be no problem for those that climb the corporate ladder.

Now, answer the question: why haven’t we seen excerpts from those Red Cross documents if they prove the holocaust? You jews would be trotting them out on a daily basis if they did, and you know it. We do, too.

First of all, no where in the excerpt you presented does it state the water table was 12 cm below the ground as previously claimed. The levels range from 0.20 m to 1.2m. Secondly, this is insufficient evidence to prove the physical impossibility of bodies stacked several corpses deep burning in a ditch. In fact, as far as I can ascertain, this is not even addressed in your excerpt.

Quote:

By the way, I have statements of Biedemann during the Ernst Zundel trial, as well as 2 letters from Biedemann to Zundel. Biedemann was the former head of the ITS (A branch of the Red cross, the Tracing Service), and he vehemently denied any knowledge of any Gas chambers.

Biedermann further agreed there were never any indications by the Red Cross from all its reports that gas chambers were being used during the war. (Vol 12-2624.2624)

Are you suggesting that Mr. Biedemann perjured himself on the witness stand? and if so, care to prove it with a factual base? for the record Biedemann was called to testify against Zundel, not for.

Do you actually possess a copy of these letters and statements or are you simply going to snip it form zundelsite.org, vho.org or codoh.com?

I am in no position to assert anything regarding the sincerity of Biedermann's testimony at the Zundel trial. However, I will state the following:

There is nothing in the article that demonstrates that the documents released in 1997 are unreliable or falsehoods and that Willemin's admission was insincere. It basically states Biedermann believes Red Cross reports do not confirm the existence of gas chambers and that he was not allowed to draw up statistics. It does not state anywhere which reports Beidermann specifcally refers to (so others may verify his claims) nor does it state why he was allowed to draw up statistics. This hardly constitutes sufficient evidence for me to accept your conclusions over the conclusions of Willemin.

Alas, I anxiously await your next volley from the archives of zundelsite.org, vho.org or codoh.com.

First of all, no where in the excerpt you presented does it state the water table was 12 cm below the ground as previously claimed. The levels range from 0.20 m to 1.2m.

Firstly, I did not give that excerpt to prove that bodies cant be stacked up together and burned, secondly the Excerpts I presented was merely to show you that research had been done to conduct the water ground levels of nearly every inch on the vicinity.

Thirdly, I gave you the link to the article specifically for the purpose that you should read it, and see that it is not possible to burn individuals in ditches in an area which encompasses so much water.

What the levels are and what he stated is of no consequence, I directed you to an answer as to how he could say they would be burned in a pond of water.

Merely reading my excerpts is not enough for you to toss a comment in, I suggest you read the entire article before making a fool out of yourself.

Quote:

Do you actually possess a copy of these letters and statements or are you simply going to snip it form zundelsite.org, vho.org or codoh.com?

Once again the Jew shows the reader that what I said is entirely correct, he demands documentation or a contradicting statement, but the minute he receives it, his Yarmulke grips tightly around his head and he denies acceptance on the basis that he doesn't approve of it.

Quote:

I am in no position to assert anything regarding the sincerity of Biedermann's testimony at the Zundel trial.

Precisely.

Quote:

There is nothing in the article that demonstrates that the documents released in 1997 are unreliable or falsehoods and that Willemin's admission was insincere.

As you yourself said, Willemin merely admitted to knowledge of atrocities, not Gas chambers, so Willemin's statement really means nothing does it? Since this is not a "German Atrocities thread" but a Gas chambers thread.

You brought an inconsequential piece of information.

Quote:

This hardly constitutes sufficient evidence for me to accept your conclusions over the conclusions of Willemin.

And what is the conclusions of Willemin? I thought he merely made a statement?

I smell a contradiction.

On another note, let us turn the argument shall we, Do you have the documents from Willemins statement? or are you just going to snip from AP and Jewish News weekly?

It does not state anywhere which reports Willemin specifcally refers to, This hardly constitutes sufficient evidence for me to accept your conclusions over the conclusions of Biedermann.

Quote:

Alas, I anxiously await your next volley from the archives of zundelsite.org, vho.org or codoh.com

“A pit adds nothing but unnecessary work. It actually complicates the combustion process by severely restricting the flow of air to the bottom, which is essential for combustion. Holocaust propagandists should take a good look at a barbecue set. There are always holes at the bottom of the pan that holds the charcoal to allow air to come in.

It is often claimed that burning of bodies in pits in concentration camps was allegedly done throughout the year, which included winter months. In the warm climate of India it takes almost half a ton of dry wood to cremate a body, but in subzero temperatures of Poland in the winter months it would only be natural to assume that cremation would require even more energy than in India, to account for the fact that the rate of heat loss into the atmosphere would be considerably greater. It would take plenty of energy just to melt the ice on and in the bodies! Human bodies, as is well known, contain at least 60 percent of water....

Why in the name of plain common sense, burning pits?”

In order for me to fairly comment, I'd have to read it in the context of the court record. Do you have the entire record or is this from a revisionist website?

Regardless, no where in the court excerpt does it prove the physical impossibility of burning the bodies stacked several corpses high. The witness admits he is not properly qualified to comment on how the Nazis were able to burn the bodies. Your argument would be more convincing if a reputable scientist were stating it was an impossibility.

Quote:

Once again, can everyone say redirection? The Catholic Church has claimed infallibility throughout history. They may realize no one believes that anymore. I don’t think the Red Cross has ever claimed infallibility. Plus, the upper hierarchy of the Red Cross are in the positions they are because they know what happens to anyone that questions the fable of the holohoax. They’ve seen what happens to people that do, like Ernst Zundel. It’s bad for one’s career. It wasn’t that bad for careers during or after WWII. These days, it’s good for one’s career to suck up to the jews. If you have no self-respect or integrity, it isn’t that hard. That would be no problem for those that climb the corporate ladder.

Now, answer the question: why haven’t we seen excerpts from those Red Cross documents if they prove the holocaust? You jews would be trotting them out on a daily basis if they did, and you know it. We do, too.

There is nothing of substance here. You do not deny your faulty logic, you merely toss out some ridiculous "Jew conspiracy".

As for an answer to your question: I do not know if there are or are not books that utilize the Red Cross documents released. Perhaps, there are books, perhaps not. Maybe the documents are still being catologued. Or maybe scholars are still verifying the authenticity of the documents. Why not write the Red Cross and find out?

Once again the Jew shows the reader that what I said is entirely correct, he demands documentation or a contradicting statement, but the minute he receives it, his Yarmulke grips tightly around his head and he denies acceptance on the basis that he doesn't approve of it.

Incorrect. You stated: "By the way, I [my emphasis] have statements of Biedemann during the Ernst Zundel trial, as well as 2 letters from Biedemann to Zundel." I merely asked if you personally possessed the statement and the two letters or do you mean you have access to them via one of the previously mentioned websites? You respond with gibberish.

Quote:

As you yourself said, Willemin merely admitted to knowledge of atrocities, not Gas chambers, so Willemin's statement really means nothing does it? Since this is not a "German Atrocities thread" but a Gas chambers thread.

You brought an inconsequential piece of information.

Fine. Petition the moderator to move this discussion to another part of the Opposing View forum. I shall not object.

This is hardly an inconsequential piece of information, despite your feeble protest. Both the efforts of the Red Cross and gas chambers are a part of Holocaust history.

Quote:

And what is the conclusions of Willemin? I thought he merely made a statement?

I smell a contradiction.

Fine. My wording was inappropriate. Why should I or any reader accept your statements over those made by Willemin?

In order for me to fairly comment, I'd have to read it in the context of the court record. Do you have the entire record or is this from a revisionist website?

Regardless, no where in the court excerpt does it prove the physical impossibility of burning the bodies stacked several corpses high. The witness admits he is not properly qualified to comment on how the Nazis were able to burn the bodies. Your argument would be more convincing if a reputable scientist were stating it was an impossibility.

As I said, dimbulb, impossibility is not the issue. Improbability is. Extreme improbability. Improbability that no one with an IQ above 75 would consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MapleLeaf_Up

There is nothing of substance here. You do not deny your faulty logic, you merely toss out some ridiculous "Jew conspiracy".

As for an answer to your question: I do not know if there are or are not books that utilize the Red Cross documents released. Perhaps, there are books, perhaps not. Maybe the documents are still being catologued. Or maybe scholars are still verifying the authenticity of the documents. Why not write the Red Cross and find out?

There is nothing of substance in your entire post. In fact, your response, if you were me, would be "Prove the impossibility of a jewish conspiracy". And, besides, I'm not the liar that's trying to imply that the Red Cross documents make any difference to the question of the gas chambers. You are. I know that given the rabid stupidity of people like you, someone of your ilk would have been posting them on a regular basis on Stormfront if they even had a single sentence that could be disputed. Doubt it? Prove the impossibility of it, moron!

I'll certainly read this article but please allow me time to read it and verify it. I'd also appreciate links to material you've read that corroborate the findings in this article; particularly, any corroboration found from sources other than vho.org, zundelsite.org or codoh.com. It would greatly speed the process.

Incorrect. You stated: "By the way, I [my emphasis] have statements of Biedemann during the Ernst Zundel trial, as well as 2 letters from Biedemann to Zundel." I merely asked if you personally possessed the statement and the two letters or do you mean you have access to them via one of the previously mentioned websites? You respond with gibberish.

You knew perfectly well what I meant, You were simply trying to distract away from the issue at hand, but if you'll prefer perhaps I should speak in another language? One which is more native to me?

Quote:

Fine. Petition the moderator to move this discussion to another part of the Opposing View forum. I shall not object.

And what will we discuss? the Statement of Willemin? The invisible documents supposedly plastered in Museums? The lack of access to these documents?

What will we discuss concerning these illustrious "conclusions" of Willemin?

Quote:

This is hardly an inconsequential piece of information, despite your feeble protest. Both the efforts of the Red Cross and gas chambers are a part of Holocaust history.

Is it? The Gas chambers are the center of the Holocaust history, and the Red Cross don't acknowledge it, so yes it is inconsequential, the treatment of prisoners via segregation, is really non of my concern.

Quote:

Fine. My wording was inappropriate. Why should I or any reader accept your statements over those made by Willemin?

Firstly, you are implying or leading the reader on by suggesting there is more to Willemins statement that is actually a fact, so the Red Cross admitted to knowledge of Atrocities, horrah...let us pop the brandy shall we...what does this prove exactly?

Let's say for arguments sake that it is factual, what does it prove? Maltreatment? They have their own in the form of Eisenhower, that a few were shot? where are the statistics of these individuals? no where, you are asking the reader to accept something as more than it is.

His lack of admission where the Gas Chambers are concerned is a minor victory for me.

As I said, dimbulb, impossibility is not the issue. Improbability is. Extreme improbability. Improbability that no one with an IQ above 75 would consider.

There is nothing of substance in your entire post. In fact, your response, if you were me, would be "Prove the impossibility of a jewish conspiracy". And, besides, I'm not the liar that's trying to imply that the Red Cross documents make any difference to the question of the gas chambers. You are. I know that given the rabid stupidity of people like you, someone of your ilk would have been posting them on a regular basis on Stormfront if they even had a single sentence that could be disputed. Doubt it? Prove the impossibility of it, moron!

This is rubbish and, sadly, your name calling is quite juvenille.

I do not know precisely what is in those Red Cross documents. I have only stated that Willemin conceded to the failings of the Red Cross and that the organization was aware of the Holocaust. I do not believe I have stated otherwise. As I proposed to Bismarck, if you feel this line of discussion is inappropriate for this specific thread, then petition to have it moved. I shall not object.

Nevertheless, as I have previously posted, I never stated whether or not it was an impossibility. All I have asked is that those claiming it was a physical impossibility, such as the Oldman and his supporters, to clearly demonstrate so and I'd concede that Weisel possibly exaggerated his account.

If you prefer, I'll reword it. If you can clearly demostrate the "extreme improbability" of the account, as you say, I'll concede Weisel possibly exaggerated his account. Give me any two independent, corroborating reports and I'll concede. Does anyone have anything outside of a snippet from vho.org et al. that supports this improbability?